BLOG@IP::JUR

Friday, March 30, 2007

UK Annual Review for 2006 Now Availabe On-Line.

The UK Patent Office has

published an

Annual Review for 2006. The report gives readers access to key facts and figures on UK Intellectual Property in 2006. The publication provides details of the number of applications received, grouped by type and region, as well as listing the Top 50 filers for Patents, Trade Marks and Designs.

Technorati Tags:

Intellectual Property

Important Conference on European Patent Politics Closes in Berlin.

Today is the second and last day of

a closed-shop conference on patent politics held under the title "A Europe of Innovation - Fit for the Future?". The conference was organised jointly by the

German Federal Ministry of Justice and the

Federation of German Industries (BDI). With this conference, the German EU Presidency intended to provide German and international decision-makers and experts in the field of patent policy with a forum to discuss reforms to the patent system in Europe. The conference programme is available

here.

Mr. Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, held

another of his speeches on European Patent Policy:

"[...] The figures and the facts speak for themselves. Recent studies have shown that a European patent designating 13 countries is about 11 times more expensive than a US patent and 13 times more expensive then a Japanese patent. Heavy translation and legal costs make registering, enforcing and challenging patents expensive and cumbersome.

This is no longer sustainable. We have no choice but to try and reduce the cost of patenting and improve the current litigation patchwork in the EU. The results of the consultation that we did in 2006 were clear on this. There was strong support for a cost effective Community patent including sound litigation arrangements, while at the same time improving the current patent system in Europe. In October 2006 the European Parliament supported this line and urged us to explore all possible ways of improving the patent granting and litigation systems in the EU. This calls for a combined effort by Member States and the Community institutions. [...]"

And, as an important announcement:

"[...] When I took over as Commissioner, I promised to make one attempt on the Community patent dossier. That time has now come. I have proposed to the college of Commissioners that the Commission should adopt a Communication on possible ways forward to improve the patent system in Europe. That Communication is due to be adopted early next week.

The Communication will make some suggestions on how the EU might move out of the current deadlock and increasingly polarised positions, into a more constructive phase of negotiations.

The Communication will not perform a magic trick. I will not be pulling a rabbit out of a hat next week when it is adopted. But I will be putting forward some constructive suggestions on the way forward, especially on the jurisdiction issue, together with a checklist of the different areas of patent policy which the EU needs to address. The Communication will provide a framework for discussions in the Council and the European Parliament. [...]"

Well, let's wait and see what will come out next week ...

Also Ms. Zypries, German Minister of Justice,

held a speech [in German only, sorry].

"[...] Ich will, lieber Herr McCreevy, Ihren Ausführungen nicht vorgreifen. Aber das, was im Vorfeld über die anstehende Kommissionsmitteilung zur Patentstrategie zu hüren war, stimmt mich skeptisch.

Ich denke, es hat die Suche nach einer Lösung der Probleme nicht erleichtert, dass die Kommission ihre Mitteilung nicht unmittelbar nach der Konsultation vorgelegt hat, sondern erst jetzt. Aber selbstverständlich haben auch die Mitgliedstaaten und der Rat nicht immer glücklich agiert. Wir haben unter der finnischen Präsidentschaft eine kontroverse Debatte über das Patentsystem begonnen, obwohl damals die Mitteilung der Kommission noch gar nicht vorlag und das Thema von unseren Experten noch nicht aufbereitet war.

Trotzdem: Ich hätte mir gewünscht, die Kommission würde jetzt mehr Mut zeigen. Nehmen wir zum Beispiel die einheitliche europäische Patentgerichtsbarkeit. Dazu gibt es zwei Lösungswege: Einerseits das EPLA und andererseits die Idee, die nationale Gerichtsbarkeit für Bündelpatente unter das Dach des EuGH zu überführen.

Wer hier eine 'integrierende' Lösung vorschlägt, die beide Ansätze verbinden soll, der müsste vorab klären, was nach dem Europarecht überhaupt zulässig ist, und er müsste dann ein konkretes, eigenständiges drittes Modell vorlegen.

Dann müsste man aber auch klar sagen, wie viele Regionalkammern es geben soll und wie die verteilt werden. Dann müsste geklärt sein, welche Verfahrensordnung zu beachten ist, und dann müsste auch ein Vorschlag für die Verfahrenssprachen gemacht werden. Alles das fehlt aber, und dies meine ich mit dem Mangel an Mut zu konkreten Lösungen.

Für mich ist jedenfalls klar, dass eine Zersplitterung der vorhandenen Gerichtsbarkeit nicht erstrebenswert ist. Nach Mitteilung der Kommission werden die rund 1400 Streitigkeiten über europäische Patente pro Jahr im Wesentlichen in vier Staaten verhandelt. Wir sollten ganz sicher kein Modell anstreben, bei dem diese Fälle künftig auf Eingangsinstanzen in allen 27 Mitgliedstaaten verteilt werden.

Entscheidender Faktor für die hohe Qualität einer Patentgerichtsbarkeit ist die technische Qualifikation ihrer Richter. Wir haben damit in Deutschland sehr gute Erfahrungen gemacht. Ingenieure, Chemiker oder Biologen sorgen als technische Richter dafür, dass die Entscheidungen bei den Prozessparteien eine hohe Akzeptanz genießen. Ich meine, wir sollten auch solche Erfahrungen aufgreifen, wenn wir jetzt darüber diskutieren, wie wir eine einheitliche europäische Gerichtsbarkeit schaffen. [...]"

I would like to offer a translation as follows:

"[...] Dear Mr. McCreevy, I do not want to anticipate your speech. But that what was told in the run-up to the upcoming Communication of the Commission on patent strategy makes me think sceptical.

I think the fact that the Commission did not present their Communication immediately after the consultation has not made easier the search for a solution to the problems. But, of course, also the Member States as well as the Council did not always act prosperously. Under Finnish presidency we have started a controversial debate on the patent system despite the fact that the Communication of the Commission was not present and the matter was not prepared by our experts.

Nevertheless: I would have wished the Commission showing more courage. For example, let's take the unitary European judiciary system on patents: There are two solution paths: On the one hand, the EPLA and, on the other hand, the idea to bring national judiciary for bundle patents under the roof of the ECJ.

Whoever proposes an 'integrating solution' combining both approaches should clarify beforehand what is allowable in accordance with applicable European Law, and he should provide a precise and self-contained third model.

Then it should also clearly be articulated as to how many regional chambers are to be installed and how they are to be distributed. Then the question of the rules of procedure should be resolved, and a proposal for the languages of the proceedings is due to be made. But all this is missing, and this I call lack of courage with regard to precise solutions.

In any case I am determined to upheld that any fragmentation of the existing jurisdiction is not desirable. According to a communication of the Commission, approximately 1.400 disputes on European Patents are dealt with substantially in four states. We surely do not strive for a models where those cases are in future scattered over entry instances in all 27 Member States.

A decisive factor for the hight quality of a jurisdiction on patents is the technical qualification of their judges. In Germany we have been well off therewith. Engineers, chemists or biologists, in their capacity as technical judges, make sure that the decisions meet high acceptance at the parties of the proceedings. I think we should also take up such experiences when we now discuss how to create a unified European jurisdiction on patents. [...]"

So, Mr. McCreevy appears to be reluctantly preparing modest proposals while Ms. Zypris, acting on behalf of the German EU Presidency, wants to see tougher action. It looks as if it would be up to the German Presidency to push ahead any patent reform in Europe. Surely the Berlin conference will offer plenty of room for confidential talks behind the scenes.

Technorati Tags:

(1) comments

Issue 01/2007 of epi-Information Now On-Line.

The recent issue 01/2002 is ready for download

here (PDF).

This issue is a themed issue of epi Information dedicated to aspects of training in the Member States, covering epi tutorials 2007, pre-announcement of epi seminars, CEIPI news, and a survey on the patent profession in the EPC member states.

On page 9, there is a quite interesting statistics concerning the list of professional representatives admitted for representation before the EPO. There are two routes as to how to make the way onto this list:

According to Article 134 EPC: Passing the European qualifying examination (EQE) with its notoriously low pass rate; or
According to Article 163 EPC: Being a national patent attorney, entitled to represent natural or legal persons in patent matters before the central industrial property office of the Contracting State in which he has his place of business or employment, during a transitional period after accession to the EPC. This is the so-called "Grandfather's Clause".

Of course, just after the EPO had become operational in the late 1970s, 100% of the European Patent Attorneys had been enrolled on the list of professional representatives by means of said "Grandfather's Clause". Even today, roughly 25 years thereafter, in Germany still 27,5 % of the European Patent Attorneys are on the list who are beneficiaries of the said "Grandfather's Clause", says the above-mentioned statistics printed in the recent issue of epi-Information. And, in total, 42,7% of all European Patent Attorneys (3738 out of a total of 8747) never had to sit the EQE. There appears to be a quite striking imbalance with regard to access to the legal services market in the EPC region between those who have been lucky to be "grandfathered" onto this list of representatives, on the one hand, and those who had to take the EQE, on the other hand.

When creating the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), the EU Commission was confronted with the same question as to how to deal with accrediting of professional representatives. They eventually took another route than the Munich Diplomatic Conference in 1972 forging the EPC: In

Article 89 CTMR, it was stipulated that a candidate eligible for entry into the list must be entitled to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark matters before the central industrial property office of the Member State in which he has his place of business or employment. Where, in that State, the entitlement is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, persons applying to be entered on the list who act in trade mark matters before the central industrial property office of the said State must have habitually so acted for at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark matters before the central industrial property office of one of the Member States is officially recognized in accordance with the regulations laid down by such State shall not be subject to the condition of having exercised the profession.

With other words, the exceptional "Grandfather's Clause" of the EPC is long-standing norm with regard to professional representation before the OHIM.

I never have heard complaints to the effect that professional representatives entitled to represent before the OHIM are considered to be substandard just because of there is no OHIM counterpart of the EQE.

And, nobody of those "Grandfathers" representing their Clients before their EPO without having sit the EQE would ever accept to be seen as second to those who have passed EQE.

Hence, it looks as if something like a mishap happened when in 1972 the Munich Conference drew up Article 134 EPC requiring passing of the EQE.

Technorati Tags:

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Issue 03/2007 of the Official Journal of the EPO has been Published on the EPO Website.

Today,

Issue 03/2007 of the Official Journal of the EPO has been published on the EPO website.

This issue comprises, inter alia, a

Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03 dated March 30, 2006, T 1409/05 - 3.4.0 concerning the sequence of divisionals:

"The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

(1) In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, is it a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1) EPC, second sentence, that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly, unambiguously and separately derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed?

(2) If the above condition is not sufficient, does said sentence impose the additional requirement (a) that the subject-matter of the claims of said divisional be nested within the subject-matter of the claims of its divisional predecessors?

or

(b) that all the divisional predecessors of said divisional comply with Article 76(1)
EPC?"

Moreover,

notice from the European Patent Office is given dated January 15, 2007, concerning the launch of Online Filing software version 3.20. And, in the same context,

another notice from the European Patent Office has been published dated January 30, 2007, concerning the decision to cease to accept European and international patent applications produced with version 2.10 or any earlier version of the epoline Online Filing software.

Technorati Tags:

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

UK: SanDisk Corporation v Koninklijke Philips Electronics and Others.

This

snippet from

Times Online might perhaps be of more general interest:

"[...] In a European cross-border patent abuse claim, the English courts could assume jurisdiction only if the first steps of the alleged abuses took place within the jurisdiction or if immediate damage was cause to the plaintiff there. [...]"

Technorati Tags:

Criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights aka

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

JURI Has Voted On Draft Report Concerning IPRED2.

Today, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament did not only listen to

Mr. McCreevy's speech but also took a vote on the adoption of a draft report set up by Ms. Nicola Zingaretti (PSE) concerning

IPRED2.

Numerous amendmends (see

here and

here) to the

original Draft report had been tabled.

I haven't yet seen any Official paper reporting the voting results but

FFII

is already complaining ...

[UPDATE 2007-03-30]A Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), Brussels, March 19-20, 2007, is

available on-line.

Technorati Tags:

IPRED2

OHIM Publishes 2006 Annual Report.

The

Annual Report [this link is for the English PDF version] of the

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the year 2006 is now available in electronic format in the five languages of the Office.

Technorati Tags:

OHIM

McCreevy On European Patent Policy: "We Must Strike Now While The Iron Is Hot".

Mr. Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, has given

a speech at the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) on March 20, 2007, saying:

"[...] One of the Lisbon priorities is to improve the way intellectual property rights are handled in Europe. The Spring European Council invited the Commission to put forward a strategy for patents. We intend to do so. I think we must strike now while the iron is hot.

And yet, as you well know, experience shows that there is still a sizeable gap between ambition and reality in this area. There has been frustrating deadlock. Europe cannot afford such deadlock much longer. We must do more to support the process of change that helps transform Europe from a production-based economy to a knowledge and service-based economy. Patents are essential to foster clever solutions in key technologies. Without patents, there is no dynamic knowledge transfer from research to markets.

Does Europe have the best patent system in the world? I doubt it. The single market for patents is far from complete. Fragmentation has serious consequences for the competitiveness of Europe in relation to the challenges of the US, Japan and emerging economic powers such as China and India.

And there is more: a fragmented litigation system leads to a lack of certainty for users of the patent system. For one and the same invention, the tribunals of several Member States might come to different conclusions.

And yet, our patent policy has been held back by protracted debate and argument. We have failed to deliver the results that Europe's innovators and inventors need. They are left out in the cold. This cannot go on. We can not sustain such a competitive disadvantage.

We have to show that Europe is prepared to respond to the challenge of globalisation. If we want to be at the forefront of innovation, a sound patent strategy is indispensable. Concrete progress is needed.

This requires creativity. And it requires compromise. We need a realistic approach that takes the best elements from the different proposals that have been made. Without readiness of all parties to really try and resolve this issue in the interest of our companies and inventors, we simply will not make progress.

With my services, we have prepared a Patent Strategy that addresses the open issues on both to the Community Patent and the creation of a European patent Litigation System. It also sets out 'flanking measures', such as support for SMEs, technology transfer, and enforcement issues including alternative dispute resolution, patent litigation insurance, and international aspects of enforcement. This is currently being discussed in the Commission.

But let us be clear about one thing: No progress will be made without a constructive attitude by all players. Agreement is not a foregone conclusion. [...]"

Obviously, it appears as if Mr. McCreevy is just appealing to the willingness to the stakeholders to compromise about the various open questions of patent politics from EPLA to Community Patent. What else could he do? And yes, he is absolutely right when re-iterating "agreement is not a foregone conclusion".

Technorati Tags:

Sunday, March 18, 2007

European Patent Politics - Mr. McCreevy's Final Offer To Come Soon?

From

EuropeanVoice.com:

"[...] In a draft paper setting out options for the EU's intellectual property protection, entitled 'A patent strategy for Europe', the Commission floats the possibility of a halfway-house, creating a European Patent Judiciary (EPJ) for litigation on European patents, which would be subject to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At the outset, this would oversee patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), a non-EU body based in Munich. [...]"

The paper appears to incorporate some sort of compromise by adopting EPLA (with an European Patent Judiciary under the auspices of the European Court of Justice) formally by the EU in order to preserve, in return, a (maybe somewhat dim) political option to establish a full EU Community Patent some years later. This tactics could in particular avoid any legal hassle as to whether or not EPLA as it stands now

violates mandatory EU law.

Well, common gossip says it is most likely that Mr. McCreevy will hand over this proposal to the current German EU Presidency and then wait and see what will happen.

Technorati Tags:

Friday, March 16, 2007

IATE Now Avilable On-Line.

IATE, a EU terminology database is now available to all on-line (link thanks to

Transblawg - Ms. Margaret Marks' Weblog on German-English legal translation from Fürth).

IATE ("Inter-Active Terminology for Europe") is the EU inter-institutional terminology database system. IATE has been used in the EU institutions and agencies since summer 2004 for the collection, dissemination and shared management of EU-specific terminology. The project partners are:

European Commission
Parliament
Council
Court of Justice
Court of Auditors
Economic & Social Committee
Committee of the Regions
European Central Bank
European Investment Bank
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the EU

The project was launched in 1999 with the objective to provide a web-based infrastructure for all EU terminology resources, enhancing the availability and standardisation of the information.

IATE incorporates all of the existing terminology databases of the EU's translation services into a single new, highly interactive and accessible interinstitutional database. The following legacy databases have been imported into IATE which now contains approximately 1.4 million multilingual entries:

Eurodicautom (Commission),
TIS (Council),
Euterpe (EP),
Euroterms (Translation Centre),
CDCTERM (Court of Auditors),

This tool clearly can be of great use in the world of legal services, giving me reason to re-post this note.

Technorati Tags:

IATE

Despite UK Suggestion - EPO EBA Won't Discuss Patentability of CIIs.

In the (meanwhile well-known) Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on Appeal from the High Court of Justice Chancery Division (Patents Court) concerning patent applications of Aerotel and Macrossan - Neutral Citation Number:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1371 - given by The Hon Mr Justice Lewison, The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob, and by The Rt Hon Lord Justice Neuberger, a suggestion had been made to invoke the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO:

"[...] The decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal are mutually contradictory. To say that is not to criticise anyone. On the contrary the Boards of Appeal have each done what they think is right in law - as befits tribunals exercising a judicial function. But surely the time has come for matters to be clarified by an Enlarged Board of Appeal. Under Art.112(1)(b) of the EPC the President of the EPO has the power to refer a point of law to an Enlarged Board where two Boards of Appeal have given different decisions on that question. That is now clearly the position. There are indeed at least four differing points of view. We have no power to refer any question and must reach our decision now independently of what any Enlarged Board might decide if and when there is a reference. Nonetheless we have ventured to formulate questions which might be asked of an Enlarged Board in the hope of encouraging a reference. We add that the Comptroller supports us in this course. [...]"

Now, it does not really come to me as a surprise that the President of the EPO officially has

declined:

"Dear Lord Justice Jacob,

I am writing to you to let you know that the above-mentioned decision has led to a discussion within the EPO as to the possibility of referring questions regarding the exclusions to patentability set out in Article 52(2) EPC to the Enlarged board of Appeal.

On the basis of these discussions I have decided that at the moment there is an insufficient legal basis for a referral under Article 112(1)(b) EPC. Leaving aside Board of Appeal case law the line of reasoning of which has been abandoned by later case law, I believe there are insufficient differences between current Board of Appeal decisions dealing with Article 52 EPC exclusions on important points of law that would justify a referral at this stage.

This of course does not mean that a clarification of certain issues by the Enlarged Board of Appeal would not be welcomed. The EPO will continue to monitor case law closely, whereby I believe the appropriate moment for a referral would be where the approach taken by one Board of Appeal would lead to the grant of a patent whereas the approach taken by another Board would not.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Comptroller General of the United Kingdom Patent Office.

Yours sincerely

Professor Alain Pompidou
President"

It would have been a delicate and quite surprising precedent if the President of a trans-national institution like the European Patent Office would have accepted a suggestion to go into that disputed matter uttered by a national court and/or authority. Seen from the viewpoint of the top level executives of the EPO, there might perhaps be a continous development of case law over the years but no contradicting decisions of different Boards of Appeal. See also

Mr. Joff's comment on the

IAM Blog.

Technorati Tags:

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Did You Know ...

that OHIM has published a dedicated

Regulation governing the 'OHIM Annual Prize' for the best dissertation in the field of Community Trade Marks and Designs? And, they did not even miss to create appropriate

application forms [MS-Word format]. Maybe this can be of interest for scholars active in this field reading this Blog.

Technorati Tags:

OHIM

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

UK Patent Practice On CIIs.

From

IT Week:

"[...] The UK reinforced its opposition to software patents yesterday after the High Court rejected an appeal from news agency Bloomberg against the UK Patent Office, which had refused to grant a patent for the company's system of conveying financial information.

Justice Pumfrey upheld the Patent Office's decision that the Bloomberg program - which distributes financial data records to users working on different platforms by identifying the application the intended recipient is working on and delivering the data in the appropriate format - is pure software and therefore ineligible for a UK patent. [...]"

The article quoted above does not indicate the patent number, but I guess that it might refer to

GB0403012. In the matter of this patent application,

a hearing had been scheduled to be held before Mr. H. Jones, Hearing Officer, on June 15, 2006. Below, claim 1 of that application is quoted:

"A method of distributing data to users of a computer system, comprising:

identifying, from a plurality of formatted financial data records, data records to be electronically transferred to a plurality of users of the computer system in accordance with data indicating the data records that are to be delivered to respective users; and

mapping each identified data record for each user to whom the record is to be transferred in accordance with data indicating mapping of the respective data record for at least one application operable on a computer terminal accessible by the user to whom the data record is to be delivered."

Mr. Jones found that the advance made by the applicant lies wholly within the meaning of a computer program and is, therefore, not patentable. In particular, he stated that whilst the invention provides for re-formatting of the information prior to transmission, this is not done with the aim of reducing the burden placed on the network but merely serves to improve inter-operability with client applications. The only improvement in transmission efficiency is achieved by preventing irrelevant information being sent to the client.

Now, the High Court does not appear to have seen any different perspectives of that matter.

IPKat has a

nice overview concerning other cases of computer-implemented inventions decided since the judgment of the Court of Appeal in re Aerotel/Macrossan.

Mr. John Collins is a patent attorney involved in the Bloomberg matter. He argues:

"[...] John Collins, a partner at patent and trade mark attorneys Marks & Clerk, said that despite pure software patents being granted in the UK in the past this latest ruling appeared to confirm that an inventive hardware element must be involved for a company to obtain a patent on a computer-based invention.

However, he warned that such a stance could damage UK competitiveness because the country is now granting fewer patents for computer-based applications than the rest of Europe. 'The less permissive approach by the UK examiners and courts represents a disincentive for British firms to develop technical solutions,' he said. 'Time and effort is unlikely to be wasted developing technology, such as Bloomberg's new data delivery system, if it can be copied immediately by all and sundry in the UK.' [...]"

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Nordic Patent Institute Said To Be Operational By January 01, 2008.

my earlier posting I had reported that, in October 2006 and merely on paper, the

Nordic Patent Institute (NPI) had been approved as PCT Authority by the WIPO General Assembly. Now there are indications that NPI aims to be operative as an International Search Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examination Authority (IPEA) from January 01, 2008, subject to necessary national decisions. There is

a provisional website further saying that NPI shall be located in Denmark close to the Danish Patent Office; however, the new authority will have a separate office with an independent director. NPI's mission is characterised as follows:

"[...] The Nordic Patent Institute (NPI) is a patent authority under establishment by Denmark, Iceland and Norway. NPI will act as PCT authority (International Search Authority and International Preliminary Examination Authority) for residents of the member countries, and will provide other services in the patent field.

The NPI was established with the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the patent competence and services of the national patent offices in the NPI member states. In this manner the vital needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are safeguarded with respect to patent information and advisory services, and national patent protection systems. [...]"

Future Services are planned as follows:

International search of international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT )
International preliminary examination of international patent applications under the PCT
International type search.
Novelty search of patent applications for other national patent authorities.

Maybe they will also offer services on a commercial scale. (Link thanks to Mr. Beyer's Blog

Innovationpartners).

Technorati Tags:

NPI

Sunday, March 11, 2007

UK Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys To Face More Red Tape?

As I had reported in

my previous posting in 2005, the UK Government is planning to

reform regulation of legal services.

Now, it appears as if the UK professional bodies of Patent Attorneys (

CIPA) and Trade Mark Attorneys (

ITMA) are in fear that they coud

fall victim of undesirable side-effects of pending reform proposals. In particular, there are some concerns in view of a threatening costly over-regulation of both professions.

"[...] As two of the smallest approved regulators in the new system, we strongly believe that regulation must be proportionate. We believe that our status as a low-risk, non-consumer focused profession with an excellent conduct record should be recognised. Currently the level of regulation of patent/trademark attorneys is light-touch and the regulatory costs to us and our members are low. We have concerns that the Board may not sufficiently take into account the dangers of over regulation for smaller Regulators and our members. Our Members currently place a very low burden on the regulatory system, and we anticipate a real risk in over-regulating those who have the freedom to opt out. This may restrict entry to, and discourage retention in, our professions and make our position as an approved regulator untenable. We look forward to hearing assurances on this issue during the passage of the Bill. [...]"

Technorati Tags:

Patent Attorneys